> On 11 Oct 2018, at 06:01, Pierz <pier...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wednesday, October 10, 2018 at 9:41:39 PM UTC+11, Philip Thrift wrote:
>
>
> On Wednesday, October 10, 2018 at 12:41:04 AM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
>
>
> On 10/9/2018 9:18 PM, Philip Thrift wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Tuesday, October 9, 2018 at 6:45:55 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 10/9/2018 11:01 AM, Philip Thrift wrote:
>>>
>>> If you reject intelligent behavior as a tool for detecting consciousness
>>> then how did you determine that? And how can you figure out anything else
>>> about any consciousness except for your own? I don't think there is any
>>> way, I think the only alternative is solipsism.
>>>
>>>
>>> That is a good question. I still think that we will have lots of
>>> intelligent robots running around - really smart, can win on Jeopardy!, can
>>> drive cars, can "fake" emotions ... - but we will not consider them
>>> conscious. We can (hopefully) turn them off and destroy them whenever we
>>> want. We do have something like a consciousness test in the case of medical
>>> decisions at end-of-life. So I think a consciousness test will be different
>>> than an intelligence test.
>>
>> Sure. Garden slugs are conscious at the level of perception, that's how
>> they find food and mates. But they're not very intelligent.
>>
>> Brent
>>
>> Do slugs perceive, or do they just react? Does a slug say to itself, "I like
>> the taste of that"?
>
> Is consciousness just the use of language? Dogs and chimps don't have
> language either. Why aren't perception and awareness forms of consciousness?
>
> Brent
>
>
> Some say humans didn't become fully conscious until they had (recursive)
> language.
>
> Yair Neumana, Ophir Nave: Why the brain needs language in order to be
> self-conscious
> <https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0732118X09000312>
>
> You need to distinguish between raw qualia - the presence of experience or a
> "what it's like to be" - and self-consciousness, or awareness of being a
> self.
Yes. And I do think that it is the difference between being Turing universal
("able to process data”) and being Löbian (knowing (in a very weak sense) your
own Turing universality). All humans can be shown easily to be Löbian, unless
grave mental handicap), and of course, as far as they are arithmetically sound
(but most are, except the rare who believe that PI = 3 because it is written in
some Text.
> The latter is a kind of meta-quale, an awareness of the fact of having qualia
> which must surely come much further up the neural complexity hierarchy than
> just pure experience itself.
It does, and from the logical view point, you get it when the machine is
defined in term of set of beliefs, and you add the beliefs in the induction
axioms.
It is the difference between Robinson arithmetic and Peano arithmetic.
> I always find it hard to understand why these completely different things get
> confused. I'm pretty sure a fly experiences suffering of some kind when I
> spray it with insecticide.
Yes. Even amoeba suffer if the pH is not good, and will do whatever possible to
go away.
> I'm also pretty sure it has no consciousness of being a self.
The fly? I tend to agree.
For some hunting or jumping spider it is already less clear for me.
The consciousness of Q is large and innocent. The consciousness of PA is less
funny, because knowing that you universal you learn to guess or even prove all
the bad shit which follows, like crashing in variated ways, or setting very
strange creatures, etc.
Plato would probably not have liked very much the universal machine, because
she put a lot of mess in already in the arithmetical heaven.
Instead of Q, we can use the (SK) combinators. Few identity rules and the two
axioms Kxy = x, and Sxyz = xz(yz) is enough. I have shown that they can compute
the primitive recursive function, and when I will have more time I will prove
that they can compute all partial computable functions (the theory will be
sigma_1 complete).
A square 4 diophantine polynomial relation can already be Turing universal.
Universality appears very quickly.
Bruno
>
> Consciousness = Linguisticity+Experientiality (both), it would seem.
>
> - https://codicalist.wordpress.com/2018/08/09/the-matter-of-consciousness/
> <https://codicalist.wordpress.com/2018/08/09/the-matter-of-consciousness/>
>
> - pt
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
> <mailto:everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com>.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com
> <mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com>.
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list
> <https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list>.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout
> <https://groups.google.com/d/optout>.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
